Can bush w/ his 21% approval rating still protect Turd Blossom?
W/ the Seigleman case Conyers has witnesses, data (Auburn Prof
has the stats that prove the 2002 election for governor was stolen,
and the money trail.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1336Dear Mr. Luskin:
We are writing in response to your May 9 letter with respect to the invitation to Karl Rove to testify before the House Judiciary Committee concerning the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Because your letter appears to reflect several misunderstandings concerning the subjects we wish to question Mr. Rove about and concerning Committee procedures, we hope that this letter will clarify these matters and help avoid the use of compulsory process. Our position remains, however, that since your client has made a number of on-the-record comments on these subjects to the media, and in light of your (now modified) statement that Mr. Rove would be willing to testify, we can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the Committee. Please contact Committee counsel or respond in writing no later than May 21 as to whether your client will make himself available to the Committee for questioning.
snip
Your letter also suggests that we address written questions to Mr. Rove, which may reflect a misunderstanding of Committee procedure. Although we do often address written questions to witnesses, that occurs after live testimony, which is critical in order to allow the follow up and give-and-take that is necessary to inquiries of this nature. Since you indicate
Mr. Rove is now willing to submit written answers to questions, which by definition would be recorded in a manner similar to a transcript, we do not understand why he would not submit to providing transcribed answers to live questions, as he has done in media interviews. We are willing to consider other possible accommodations, such as providing a list of initial questions that may be asked. But your suggestion that the Committee be limited to written answers is unacceptable.